Bye Bye Rachel Reeves

[Jobbo]

4.23 As noted above, the government has ruled out charging tax
based on when or where people drive, to protect motorists’ privacy. This
means mileage driven overseas by UK registered cars will fall into scope
of eVED, as with fuel duty, which does not vary on basis of where a car is
driven.13 Since the proportion of UK registered cars driving abroad each
year is a small proportion of total cars14, it is proportionate to prioritise
privacy and simplicity over a system of checks to deduct non-UK
mileage.

The proportion of cars driven overseas might be small but where cars are taken overseas, the mileages they do may be substantial. Drive to the south of France and back and you're easily racking up 2000 miles on your holiday. Why should the UK Government levy a tax of £60 for you doing that?

[Nefarious]

I don't *necessarily* have a problem with means testing some benefit either, but let's have ideological consistently and honesty.

There is a sliding scale between the full free market, every-man-for-himself ideology, and the full on rawlsian socialism which views income redistribution as an end in itself. Where your opinion lies on that scale is a matter of personal preference, but let's be consistent.

Personally, I am fundamentally a utilitarian - I think the guiding principle should be maximizing welfare for society as a whole, which means income redistribution to the point of preventing negative externalities (e.g. preventing poverty bad enough that it starts causing serious societal or health problems to the population as a whole). But I also believe in fairness to the point of the government trying, as far as is practically possible, to provide equality of opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcome).

[dinny_g]

I have 2 nephews in Australia who are eligible for assistance under the NDIS programme. This is not means tested for a very basic and, I think sound principle that 2 people with the same challenges in life are viewed as identical by the state.

Their value to the state is not determined by how much money they or their parents have. People, and particularly children will have a hard enough time being considered "different" that the government isn't going to exacerbate that by deciding that one person is more deserving of government help than another.

[Swervin_Mervin]

That didn't take long:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/3684 ... y-mile-tax

[Broccers]

Re benefits. When something happens to us normal folk and work isn't possible for say 6 months due to severe illness, you get sweet f a help.

[MikeHunt]

Seems like a lot of outrage about the mobility scheme, it isnt a charity handing out free cars and they are profit making lease company and not subsidised.

The cheapest large wheelchair vehicle requires a £20,000 deposit and a lease of £300 per month. A lot of families struggle to find the deposit which needs to be paid every 5 years, the car cannot be purchased at the end of the lease. Im fortunate enough to have means to purchase and convert my own car, it was cheaper long term to buy and convert high end Mercedes and now a vw than go down the mobility route.

There is a lot of waste in the system, the dwp will review health conditions every 2 to 5 years ,which in real terms means that they are checking that someones legs havent magically grown back.

[GG.]

This is a good presentation on the overall picture.

The spot I've linked to also neatly highlights that this is the biggest tax raising government in the last 50 years and all within the first 12 months of being in office.

If this is soft left moderate Labour think what a Corbynite government would have been like.

[Nefarious]

Hardly a surprise. Someone has to restock the house after a burglary

[GG.]

And that's the issue isn't it - the bulk of the spending is not in any way doing that. Its day to day welfare and in no way is it replacing capital investment reduced or deferred as a result of austerity. The spending we're increasing, using your household metaphor, is on takeaways and going down the bookies, not replacing stolen house contents.

Its also woefully sidesteps the reality - look at the NHS, ever higher spending and yet productivity is lower than pre-Covid. That's not austerity induced but structural issues that have not been addressed. You're basically turning the tap further into a colander - some of it will be retained in useful service improvement but most of the increase leaks out.

[Jobbo]

The only profligate spending I can see is the triple lock on pensions.

[GG.]

The only profligate spending you can see is the triple lock on pensions.

Come on - that's not even very good trolling.

[Simon]

Come on though. We do all agree that the triple lock needs to go eventually right? Given the way it's calculated ultimately the triple lock would be responsible for pensions being 100% of government expenditure. It's just a case of when not if it needs to get changed.

[GG.]

Yes I agree - triple lock shouldn't be in place when they're freezing tax thresholds. Has to be equity between the working and non-working and also out of work and disability benefits.

Equally though - I'm not necessarily against freezing thresholds as there is a danger spending increases and increases whilst middle earners are protected which leads to a fantasy that that can go on forever funded by someone else (whether that be business or higher earners, etc.)

[duncs500]

but let's have ideological consistently and honesty.

In politics? Not holding my breath for that!... I understand it though, they are trying to find a tightrope between achieving their broad ideological goals and maintaining the votes from at least a significant proportion of people who are not really aligned with their ideology.

They really might as well have openly increased income tax, it would have been a lot simpler for people to understand, but that's also why they can't just do that. Sad truth is doing it this way softens the headlines a little.

[Jobbo]

The only profligate spending you can see is the triple lock on pensions.

Come on - that's not even very good trolling.

Where is the spending profligate? It's nothing like your analogy of takeaways and the bookies. There's already committed stuff and not much new at all.

[Sorry, to be clear - I was talking about in this budget rather than overall.]

[Alex88]

So that's what a 'I will not come back looking for more taxes' tax raising budget looks like

Little worried that we'll get more of the same next year and beyond - even the slightest instability in global affairs will be leapt upon as justification for the wheels inevitably falling off. Especially when spending is forecast to increase so much but growth woefully low.

Good news that train fares won't be going up again - they're pure extortion as it is. And energy bills going down slightly - great, but not exactly something to get too excited about considering we're still paying way more than we did a few years ago, despite wholesale prices reducing.

And one thing that isn't being mentioned - increases to council tax. The government's 'Fairer Funding' review has apparently been a total shambles and loads of local authorities are going to see significant reductions in funding. All at a time when they're already facing bankruptcy and doing all they can to keep their heads above water and fulfill their legal obligations, some of which are highly expensive - one pupil needing specialist transport to school under SEND costs an average of £9000.. and we already know adult social care is extremely costly.

The gov is assuming that councils will just put up tax again and reduce services. No skin off the government's nose; you can just blame the local authorities for that.

[jamcg]